The problem you're facing is that the regular bid system only provides an upfront boost of units. If there is a meaningful skill gap between players then unit per unit, you'll get more down and pick better battles. What you'd need to do is give them an income boost. So while you're going to be shredding more of their men per turn they will be producing more men. Also on some maps it might be reasonable to give them a free tech or something.

Well it'd be good to put in the territory tab if when the territory gets selected somehow that it showed the list of units in that territory just like if you were hovering over the territory with the tab open. This would be helpful in cases where people need to tally up units in multiple crowded territories to calc.

I don't like that scoring system because it doesn't take into account your opponent. While in a tournament or league scenario that scoring system would be sufficient, but outside of that using it to establish some kind of ladder to try to establish who are the best players of game overall will inevitably fail because two people can just play each other a lot to propel both of them to the top of the ladder. Under an ELO system, losing ELO for losing games prevents that as well as reduces the effectiveness of farming scrubs for free wins.

Regarding Zeppelins: There really isn't any real room to lower the cost of zeppelins without zeppelin spam becoming very common due to cost effectiveness because SBR is actually a very powerful ability that demands a rather high unit cost regardless of unit stats. Suppose we make the zepps a 0/0 for $14, then you've only made the problem worse because then it'll be a statistically even money trade to bomb territories that are worth only $2.The fundamental math for SBR makes it very expensive.

Regarding sz151: It's mostly the fact that it connects with Sakhe and it's so close to the US. Fixing that in a not clumsy manner would require just redrawing the region.

Regarding money changes: I'm concerned about Germany building a factory in Rhine and / or Champagne and punish the crippled French production. Honestly, until France gets industry, it can get tricky to actually spend all of its money. On round 1, France has 20 production and thus can't even spend all its money on infantry.

Things you didn't bring up that would be good: Removing Papua infantry (allows germany to buy navy in New Guinea round 1). Moving Picardy art to Paris (makes sz25 optional).

So I've seen some criticism to this and other Sieg maps that there isn't a very good counter to infantry spam.at first I thought it was just some whining, but when I sat down and crunched the numbers, there seems to be some validity to this.So let's look at the numbers of infantry spam and the most cost effective response, inf + art. Art costs 3.5 and inf cost 2. To evenly match at stack of inf with inf + art, you would need to spend $5.5 to their 4, or roughly 1.375:1 cost ratio to crack a stack. That doesn't seem too bad, but we should compare it to non-Sieg maps whose primary distinguishing characteristic is the $2 inf. On most other maps inf cost 3 and art cost 4. This means you spend $7 to crack their $6 stack giving us a ~1.16:1 cost ratio. In effect, the discount given to defense has doubled from non-Sieg to Sieg maps.

Proposal: Reduce the cost of art to 3. What does this do? In my cost effectiveness analysis, to brings the cost ratio down from 1.375:1 to 1.25:1. Currently, people just don't really buy artillery that often and I doubt it'll have a dramatic effect on a map that heavily values mobility. Ah, but what of the elite who also sits at $3? Well it will still have it's own place as a unit since it is supported rather than supports but also it only takes up 2 space on a transport to the art's 3.

Alright so found the first bug! So it appears from the notes that:
"Communists produce all their units outside of factories, and may also build on newly captured territory. Communists may produce up to 3 units in each territory. Communist have no capital, the flag in the map is merely decoration."

But the Communists can't actually produce units in newly conquered territory and I had to edit to achieve it. I'm guessing this bug has always existed but I'll let some of the veterans chime in.

Yeah, I guess that pulicat made the Japs so high tech to feature the material superiority with respect to the Chinese, but to me it feels that has been pushed too far, since, while the Japanese had surely much more hardware than the Chinese, they were mainly an infantry army with very minor and limited mechanization, relying mainly on infantry charges and close combat.

Pulicat did want the contrast in army composition to accentuate the attrition gap between China and Japan. That being said, it always felt a little off. The Japs should probably have some infantry if only to absorb some of the the initial casualties.

Honestly, it feels like the map would be better served if things were adjusted so Japan could go first since in most other maps the "aggressor" usually goes first in a particular theater.

A skim through the Wiki is telling me that Thailand initially sought Japanese aid in fighting France to reclaim some territory in 10-1940 which is quite a bit before than the Japanese invasion in 12-1941. Thailand did declare war on the UK in Jan 1942 and there was fighting over Burma. While the time frame is out of sync with the rest of the map, there was no politics option back in the day to better simulate the delayed entry into the war.

@redrum If there is the intention to redraw the rail connections based primarily on historicity, I may provide a draft (tho there would still be the other main issue of no Muslims and Lanchow and Sian Communist, if it is an issue, as I'm almost sure it is).

I remember when I played with Puli long ago, he said that the railroads as is are historical.

If this map is getting touched up, it'd be nice if the railroads got implemented in a more reasonable fashion. As it stands, the trains are boats that move through two off map territories to get to their destination.

Various languages have double.positiveInfinity and double.negativeInfinity in some form.

But in terms of the battle calc, you could just have a checkbox for "fight to finish" then the actual background implementation doesn't show up in the UI. It's an extra click for calcing strafes though as "fight to finish" would be on by default.

The trenches are appropriately priced. On NML, they cost the same as infantry and honestly have very similar levels of effectiveness. They're only a bit OP in the early game because you can play 3 per territory per turn instead of one.